Parks & Braxton, PA: Miami DUI Lawyer | Criminal Defense

ALSO SERVING LEE, CHARLOTTE & ALL SOUTH WEST FLORIDA COUNTIES
Toll-Free
239.217.3723

Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays

Free Consultations
ALSO SERVING LEE, CHARLOTTE & ALL SOUTH WEST FLORIDA COUNTIES
Toll-Free
239.217.3723
Call 24/7 Nights, Weekends & Holidays
Free Consultations
Call
Email
Map

OUR RECENT VICTORIES

Aug 1, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-003247 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: The defendant was found passed out in his car. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed the defendant to be disoriented, sluggish, and have slurred speech. He had heavy eyelids and constricted pupils. Believing he was impaired by drugs, since there was no odor of alcohol, he was asked to perform the field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly and was arrested for DUI. He then provided a urine sample which the FDLE lab report revealed positive hits for marijuana and Alprazolam.
Defense: Since the defendant was sleeping in his car, the State could not prove he had the "capability" to operate the motor vehicle as required by the actual physical control definition in the DUI jury instruction.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 30, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000053 Judge Yerman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot watery eyes. The defendant also had slow movements, was uncooperative, and argumentative. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer at the station, who also wrote a report, had numerous contradictory observations of the defendant as compared to the arresting officer. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 30, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000053 Judge Yerman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and blood-shot watery eyes. The defendant also had slow movements, was uncooperative, and argumentative. According to the officer, he performed poorly on the roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: Parks & Braxton announced ready for trial. Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that the officer at the station, who also wrote a report, had numerous contradictory observations of the defendant as compared to the arresting officer. On the day of trial, the State Dropped the DUI and the defendant received no criminal conviction on his record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 27, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-003846 Judge Hanser
Facts: The defendant crashed through an apartment complex gate. When police arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and lethargic movements. The defendant also admitted to having drank wine that day. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. Due to injuries from the crash, he was asked to provide a blood sample at the scene. The toxicology results later revealed that the defendant's blood alcohol level was .268 and .267. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense: The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. Through our questioning of the officer, the firm was able to establish that the officer unlawfully obtained the defendant's blood through coercion. In addition, it was also unlawfully obtained on another ground since a breath test was not impractical or impossible. After the State read the depo and applicable case law, they Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 27, 2018 Case: 2017-CT-003846 Judge Hanser
Facts: The defendant crashed through an apartment complex gate. When police arrived, they noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slow speech, and lethargic movements. The defendant also admitted to having drank wine that day. The defendant performed very poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI. Due to injuries from the crash, he was asked to provide a blood sample at the scene. The toxicology results later revealed that the defendant's blood alcohol level was .268 and .267. This was the defendant's Third DUI.
Defense: The firm took a pretrial deposition of the arresting officer. Through our questioning of the officer, the firm was able to establish that the officer unlawfully obtained the defendant's blood through coercion. In addition, it was also unlawfully obtained on another ground since a breath test was not impractical or impossible. After the State read the depo and applicable case law, they Dropped the DUI.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 26, 2018 Case: 18-CF-003197 Judge Pomponio
Facts: The defendant was found passed out in his car by the police. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, he was unsteady, and a bottle in a paper bag was observed. The defendant started to do the roadsides but was unsteady and refused to continue after starting the HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI. Cocaine was also found subsequent to arrest and he was also charged with Possession of cocaine.
Defense: Since the defendant was sleeping, he had no capability to operate the motor vehicle. Thus, the State could not prove he was in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI. The felony is still pending.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 26, 2018 Case: 18-CF-003197 Judge Pomponio
Facts: The defendant was found passed out in his car by the police. Upon awakening the defendant, the officer observed an odor of alcohol, he was unsteady, and a bottle in a paper bag was observed. The defendant started to do the roadsides but was unsteady and refused to continue after starting the HGN (eye test). He was then arrested for DUI. Cocaine was also found subsequent to arrest and he was also charged with Possession of cocaine.
Defense: Since the defendant was sleeping, he had no capability to operate the motor vehicle. Thus, the State could not prove he was in actual physical control. The State Dropped the DUI. The felony is still pending.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 25, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000237CTAXES Judge Sestak
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant made unusual statements, had poor coordination, and admitted to having drank beer. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: The officer's body-worn camera, which captured the field sobriety tests, contradicted the officer's written reports as to the level of alleged impairment.
Result: The State dropped the DUI. The Defendant received no conviction on her record.
Jul 25, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000546 Judge Crown
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and the defendant admitted to having consumed one drink and two shots. While talking to the officer, she would look away from the officer. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .093 and .085 in the breath machine.
Defense: In order to request field sobriety tests, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was impaired to lawfully request roadsides. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath results could have been under the legal limit. The defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 25, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000015 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and lethargic movements. He had poor coordination, bloodshot eyes, and poor balance. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: It was pointed out to the State that the officer concluded the defendant was DUI even before he performed the roadsides, based on his off camera comments to another officer. Thus, his credibility was called into question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 25, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000237CTAXES Judge Sestak
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. Once stopped, the officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant made unusual statements, had poor coordination, and admitted to having drank beer. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI.
Defense: The officer's body-worn camera, which captured the field sobriety tests, contradicted the officer's written reports as to the level of alleged impairment.
Result: The State dropped the DUI. The Defendant received no conviction on her record.
Jul 25, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000546 Judge Crown
Facts: The defendant was stopped for driving with no headlights. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and the defendant admitted to having consumed one drink and two shots. While talking to the officer, she would look away from the officer. According to the officer, she performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After her arrest, she blew a .093 and .085 in the breath machine.
Defense: In order to request field sobriety tests, there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. Here, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was impaired to lawfully request roadsides. Also, with the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the defendant's two breath results could have been under the legal limit. The defendant received no criminal conviction on her record.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 25, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000015 Judge Jeske
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and lethargic movements. He had poor coordination, bloodshot eyes, and poor balance. After performing the field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: It was pointed out to the State that the officer concluded the defendant was DUI even before he performed the roadsides, based on his off camera comments to another officer. Thus, his credibility was called into question.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 24, 2018 Case: 18-001883MU10A Judge Pole
Facts: The defendant was stopped after running a red light at a high rate of speed. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having drank Jack and cokes. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second arrest for DUI.
Defense: Every time the officer was seen instructing the defendant how to perform each field sobriety test on his body camera, the video then would cut out while he was actually performing each exercise. We put forth to the State that this was intentionally done. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 24, 2018 Case: 18-001883MU10A Judge Pole
Facts: The defendant was stopped after running a red light at a high rate of speed. Upon contact, the officer observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having drank Jack and cokes. The defendant was asked to perform field sobriety tests. He performed very poorly according to the officer and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test. This was the defendant's Second arrest for DUI.
Defense: Every time the officer was seen instructing the defendant how to perform each field sobriety test on his body camera, the video then would cut out while he was actually performing each exercise. We put forth to the State that this was intentionally done. The State Dropped the DUI on the day of trial.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 18, 2018 Case: A6MM9PE Judge Bedinghaus
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and failure to maintain a single lane. Once stopped, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, he swayed as he stood, and was unable to keep his balance. After admitting to having consumed some glasses of wine that evening, he was then was asked to perform field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .100 in the breath machine.
Defense: The video tape of the roadside tests contradicted the police reports.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 18, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000012 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: The defendant was driving at a high rate of speed when he lost control of his car and crashed. When the officer arrived, he saw that the airbags had deployed and a tire was missing. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. He had difficulty maintaining his balance and also swayed back and forth. The defendant refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that on tape the officer had already made up his mind that the defendant was impaired. This was based on his statements to the other officer on scene prior to even coming in contact with the defendant. Also, the officer never even brought the defendant in front of the camera so one could hear him or see him.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 18, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-018768 Judge Silverman
Facts: The defendant was stopped for crossing over the center lane divider into oncoming traffic. The officer noticed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, a slight slur to his speech, and red/glassy eyes. The defendant fumbled with his documents and his manipulation was slow. He also stumbled and tripped on his feet. He then performed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .102 and .098 in the breath machine.
Defense: Due to the .02 margin of error in the breath machine, the firm was able to point out that one of the defendant's breath alcohol results could have been under the legal limit. Also, the videotape contradicted the officer's reports as to many things. For example, the defendant never tripped or stumbled and his speech was not slurred. Also, the extent of alleged impairment on the field sobriety tests as written in the reports was contracted by the tape.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 18, 2018 Case: A6MM9PE Judge Bedinghaus
Facts: The defendant was stopped for speeding and failure to maintain a single lane. Once stopped, officers observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, he swayed as he stood, and was unable to keep his balance. After admitting to having consumed some glasses of wine that evening, he was then was asked to perform field sobriety tests. According to the officer, he performed poorly and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he blew a .101 and .100 in the breath machine.
Defense: The video tape of the roadside tests contradicted the police reports.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.
Jul 18, 2018 Case: 2018-CT-000012 Judge Valkenburg
Facts: The defendant was driving at a high rate of speed when he lost control of his car and crashed. When the officer arrived, he saw that the airbags had deployed and a tire was missing. He observed the defendant to have an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech. He had difficulty maintaining his balance and also swayed back and forth. The defendant refused to perform roadside tasks and was arrested for DUI. After his arrest, he refused the breath test.
Defense: Prior to trial, we pointed out to the State that on tape the officer had already made up his mind that the defendant was impaired. This was based on his statements to the other officer on scene prior to even coming in contact with the defendant. Also, the officer never even brought the defendant in front of the camera so one could hear him or see him.
Result: The State dropped the DUI.

OBTAIN IMMEDIATE LEGAL HELP

To save your license, you must act within 10 days. Get in touch with our firm by calling 239.217.3723, or fill out the form here.